CILIP AGM Report (and minor rant)

As I had the time available to me, and I'm reasonably local, I was fortunate enough to be able to attend the CILIP AGM on October 14th. This is the first AGM that I've attended, so I had no idea what to expect, and arrived with a very open mind. Total attendance was in the mid 80s. Err - that's people numbers, not age. (Actually, thinking about it...) I recognised very few, which isn't a surprise, but when I attend events these days (such as ILI2010 which I'll write about in another post) I kind of expect that I will know people, just that I haven't met them face to face before. Didn't have that feeling with the AGM. It felt unfriendly and cliquey; my impression, someone else will tell you that it was great to meet up with old friends etc, and that's fine - both opinions are equally valid. The actual meeting was split into two sections; the interesting people led section and the AGM, and it was held in a SOAS basement. I can't easily tweet from basements. Some people can, but my phone provider didn't like it. (Is this the rant Phil? No.. but it's part of it, stick with the report.)

Annie kicked the afternoon off with a brief introduction, including a remembrance for Bob, which was nice. Biddy then did a 35 minute presentation. The following is my jotted notes, which are brief, so don't rely on them as an accurate reflection of what she said.
We were gathering to celebrate the achievement of our peers, and 'Recognition' was a central theme of her address. Biddy mentioned that there was an ambiguity over the term 'professionalism', and it's not always clear what we mean when we use the term. We don't always have time to stand back and look at who we are and what we do, so she spent some time with the Nolan principles of public life, such as selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. She also spoke to the subject of CILIP governance at work, with tests of public obligation.
She then asked how CILIP measured up to those tests, and looked at training, awards, professional networking, and she made the point that we're natural communicators.
Biddy also looked at how we're working with Defining our professional future, what we're advocating, how we determine our future, asking if we're prepared to fight for our colleagues.
She looked at the information needs of our changing society, referring to the 2010 Manifesto, a pledge to mention libraries at every opportunity, engage with MPs and champions, networking using Web 2.0 and 3.0, and looking at the future of CILIP.

I really enjoyed her presentation - this is the first opportunity I have had to hear her speak, and she made several points that I'll return to shortly. (In the rant? Yes, in the rant.) Mr Keith Wilson took us through some Charterships, Fellowships and Honorary Awards for the deserving. There was a reading of every name of each CILIP member who had died since the last AGM, and for me this was one of the most important and moving parts of the day, also very upsetting, for my personal obvious reason. We also had a really moving presentation of the CILIP Medal to Edward Dudley, which I also enjoyed since I know him slightly via his column and role in the Poly of North London School of Librarianship (when I was there).

We then, with a dragging inevitability got onto the AGM itself. I'm not entirely sure that some people's understanding of an AGM is the same as mine. I suspect that issues such as the conflicting use of terms such as Trustees/Councillors could be dealt with elsewhere - quite frankly I don't give a toss. Unlike one or two people, I'm perfectly happy that Biddy was doing her best to keep it to time, and actually, addressing this remark to the person who brought it up, the membership DO want it over before midnight. The irony of someone complaining while others were slipping out, leaving the meeting close to unquorate was not lost on me. I thought the Hon. Treasurer did a perfect job in keeping the report simple and straightforward, and I'm not interested in the technical stuff, cos it's technical. Given that one person thought 12-8=8 I think she was right to take the line she did. (Is this the rant Phil? Is it? Is it? No, but we're getting dangerously close to it) For me, this part of the day was CILIP at its worst. Dull beyond belief, rampant pedantry (I like pedantry as much as the next person, but there's a time and a place) and an emphasis on entire irrelevancies which I suspect were often used to give people a platform to stand up and remind us all of their existance.

OK, the rant. If you agree that's cool. If you don't, that's cool as well (and don't vote for me in the CILIP VP election, I'll survive). CILIP should be about being inclusive, and as Biddy pointed out, we're natural communicators. Except that the day was a perfect example of exclusion and a lack of communication. If you couldn't get the afternoon off, if you're elderly, infirm or housebound, the message is that you're not wanted. If you're unable to come to London, you're not wanted. For an organisation that's losing 700 members a year this is as close to criminal neglect as it's possible to get.

The reason that I had to write all of this stuff down is partly because I couldn't tweet. It was great that CILIP had a hashtag and really great that Biddy and Annie were emphasising it, but it's not much use in a friggin' basement! In future can we have a meeting in a room that's going to have a good signal for everyone please? Can we also have it organised so that we've got public wifi available for everyone. This is not for OUR benefit, it's for the benefit of everyone who is unable to attend.

Why was the AGM not livestreamed? The reason I was given (which may or may not be correct) was that it was too expensive. No, it's NOT too expensive, I don't care how much it costs, because it's for the membership - y'know, the people that CILIP is all about, the people who keep CILIP running. The message which is being sent out is not 'it's too expensive' it's 'YOU are not worth it'. That is indefensible and disgraceful. This is the reason that CILIP is dying on its feet. As far as I'm concerned, we need to pay what it takes to livestream, but ok, maybe it wasn't possible for some other reason. So what you do then is you video it. You get a video camera (and I KNOW people at CILIP have them because I saw them used for a talk that I gave there recently) and you video the proceedings and you put them up on YouTube the next day.

I looked at the website this morning. There's a section 'CILIP AGM highlights', which links to 2011 membership subs approved, with non-working links to CILIP honours members with awards, and Bob McKee remembered. Following the link takes you to a page with the bare minimum of data, links to the Agenda, Minutes and so on - which have to be downloaded and opened, they're not available directly on the site. Where is the text of Biddy's speech? Where's the listing of people who got awards, with their citations? (As an aside - here's a hint - if you don't know the person being cited, a spoken listing of their achievements is dull. Really, really dull. Put up a presentation at least - pictures of what they've been doing, a video of what they're up to, and run it in the background if needs be.)

Biddy said - rightly in my opinion - that we're natural communicators. It's a shame that CILIP isn't. It's a shame that the CILIP organisers seem to think it's acceptable to limit involvement to people who turn up. She also said - rightly in my opinion - that CILIP needs to embrace Web 2.0 and 3.0. Can someone therefore explain to me why - on the one time in the year when we really REALLY should do, the only way of getting the message out was by tweeting from a basement with a dodgy connection? Can someone further explain to me why a video recording wasn't made of appropriate parts of the proceedings and put onto the website?

IF (and it's a big 'if', made bigger by this posting I shouldn't wonder), IF this isn't sorted out by the time I have to do it as President (assuming I get the job, and it's another big IF) - if the majority of the membership are unable to participate at any level other than directly attending then there's going to be another person who isn't going to be able to attend. And that'll be me.

We MUST put the membership first. In order to value ourselves, in order to be ethical with a concern for inclusion, in order to be professional, and for members to have freedom of speech, and if CILIP wants to provide leadership it has to start with itself and its members. It fails to do this. Over and over again. This is simply unacceptable. How do we measure up to the 9 principles? It's great to give awards, even better if they're put in context and made available in a way that everyone can share in them. It's great if we can network, but that means so, so much more than chatting to someone in a coffee queue. Are we good communicators? Individually yes - as an organisation it sucked. Are we professionally generous? Only if you're in the room. Are we extending our scope regionally or internationally? We're scarcely able to extend our scope outside of a basement in London.

Unacceptable. End of rant.

[Edited to add a link to Biddy's address]

Comments

[Katharine Widdows]

Thanks for posting this Phil. I also feel that the AGM is far from inclusive. Just the fact that it is held in October means that almost none of those who work in academic libraries can attend, or would even have the time to follow it online if it was streamed or fully tweeted.
The whole thing with proxy votes last year brought home how much CILIP at that point did not make much effort to involve those who could not attend.
Over the last year or so however I think CILIP have got a lot better at communication and at responding to members.
I hope your blog post will act as a catalyst to show CILIP what is still not working, and perhaps it bring issues about the AGM to their attention - I think they will listen - as I say, I think they have got a lot better at responding to members over the last year or so.

[Gary Green]

I agree Phil. It would have been a great opportunity to include other members who couldn't be there in person, via some kind of virtual meeting process to engage in the discussion. I unfortunately missed Biddy's address too & it's a shame it wasn't recorded.

[Brian Kelly]

Hi Phil
I could only attend the first day of the ILI 2010 conference - sorry we didn't have the chance to meet.
As you've said in your ILI 2010 report, it is an excellent conference. I have given my thoughts on the conference (see http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/thoughts-on-ili-2010/) and pointed out how many of the delegates were demonstrating their willingness to communicate (which you have highlighted) in using Twitter to share their thoughts with a wider audience. In addition a number of people where using their phones to record video and audio of a number of the talks. The relevant speakers were happy with this as were the conference organisers.

I think it is interesting but unfortunate that conference event organisers are ahead of a professional body in this respect. I hope this will change.

[Ivan Chew]

Hi Phil, you've raised the bar for reporting library-related AGMs :) I found it insightful and humourous ("Is this the rant Phil? Is it? Is it?" LOL) I'm not a member of my own country's library association (for some other reasons). But I think what you shared here could be required reading. Thanks!

[Steven]

Hi Phil,

At the same time that you were at the CILIP AGM and other people were at Internet Librarian, I was in a meeting about trying to secure the future of our library services where I was told that there wasn't any need to review our information resources and that front line staff don't need enquiry training because: "There's nothing to it really. They've all got access to PCs. If they get any enquiries they can go onto Google." I was told this by one of our most senior librarians and this view was confirmed by three-quarters of my "Leadership Team" - all public librarians.

I am increasingly convinced that there are two professions masquerading under the same name. Your description of the AGM confirms this.

[Orangeaurochs]

It's unfortunate timing that CILIP is undergoing a lot of self-examination, internal reform, thinking about its role and how it does things when it really should be looking outwards and fighting for the library profession. Ideally it really should have got the former out of way a lot earlier. The self-examination is certainly necessary as Old CILIP is/was not capable of representing the profession even in better times. I'm not sure if it can save itself in time to save everyone else. I won't be relying on it.

[Helen Curtis]

I attended my first CILIP AGM not long after qualifying and I nearly left the profession afterwards let alone ditch my membership! It was a dull, uninspiring day, which felt much as you have suggested that it was for the select London few. I recall someone standing up and actually berating those not in attendance. It is a shame that I am not surprised to hear that things do not seemed to have changed a great deal, nor that CILIP are failing to take advantage of the technologies that can make the event more dynamic and also help reach the wider audience that they so desperately need to do.

[Jothelibrarian]

Great blog Phil. I hope you get the VP post as your passion and determination do you and the rest of the profession credit.

Just to prove you're not the only one who can have a rant (!)... here's my two penneth worth...

I went to the CILIP London AGM earlier this year (I don't live in the city any more, so it wasn't an option to attend the actual AGM you report on). It was the most depressing professional event of my life. If my organisation didn't pay my CILIP subs for me, it would have been enough to make me cease my membership (and I'm a recently chartered member!). The event was held at CILIP HQ, above ground where members could tweet. However those of us who did were tutted at and criticised by other people in the audience for causing a disturbance. I heard someone being told to "listen and stop playing with your phone". The group clearly disliked CILIP (there were lots of references to how badly done by they are by CILIP) and spent all evening reminding us that we had to be out by 8pm or the world would end...

My colleague and I found a bunch of negative grumpy people who obsessed over the petty detail. The majority appeared to be retired members, and I wondered where the new professionals were. Despite the Committee emphasising the need to have more people get involved, I doubt anyone felt inspired. I certainly didn't. I got the vibe that anyone who sought to inject a bit of enthusiasm and passion was going to be worn down by the gloom of the others. David Nicholas from UCL was the speaker. I've never seen anyone so keen to run away afterwards...

My colleague and I reflected on it the day after, and both swore we'd never attend another. Such a shame - it could have been positive, but it was anything but.

[Girl in the Moon]

Thanks for this post, Phil. I'd thought about going along to the AGM, as I've been trying recently to be more positive about CILIP by attending events and making the most, rather than sitting on the sidelines and hoping that I could magically feel involved like that. The fact it was titled 'Members' Day' also encouraged me. But I didn't in fact go, because the programme for the day didn't seem to offer that much beyond the AGM meeting, and I rather feared that it would as you described.

I'm very encouraged by your commitment, if elected, to make future AGMs more accessible to those unable to be physically present. But as I haven't yet decided for whom I shall vote in the elections, I've posted over on the e-hustings (at http://communities.cilip.org.uk/forums/t/13654.aspx) asking your VP opponent for her opinions on this subject. So CILIP members reading this post may be interested to keep their eyes on that discussion, too, if they aren't already!

[Martin Morris]

I'm both relieved and depressed to discover that I'm not alone. I went to the CILIP AGM last year because I'd really enjoyed Umbrella and thought I'd see how I might get further involved. And yes, it was definitely one of the most depressing things I've ever been to - to the extent that I was tempted to post a similar rant but honestly didn't think it was worth it. It utterly sucked, not only did I feel unwelcome, but strongly sensed that I had come to watch a clique at work.

To give an example: one thing I particularly remember is the vote on the membership fees for last year. Now, I personally don't happen to agree with what I feel is a rather regressive membership fee structure. I can accept that in a democratic vote I may be in a minority and can also accept that there may be reasons for having the structure that CILIP has that haven't occurred to me. What really surprised me however, was being the ONLY person attending the AGM out of all those present who voted against it - I suggest that's the mark of an organisation which hasn't worked out how to hold its AGMs at a time and place which are rather more conclusive as I know for a fact that I wasn't alone in my views. Debate was limited, pedantic, and it was totally and utterly clear that the vote was no more than an irritating formality, rather than a chance for debate and open-minded discussion. I'm really sorry that this year was much the same.

The thing is that since then I've met a lot of CILIP people, attended meetings of the CDG and International Group, and was also fortunate enough to be given a grant by CILIP to attend IFLA this year, so I've seen for myself that there are lots of people in CILIP who really care about the profession and are very clued-up about how best to advocate and draw in new talent. It just seems to me that there hasn't yet been a sufficient critical mass of those people at a high enough level to turn CILIP into the fighting organisation it desperately needs to be. Enough of navel-gazing discussions about 'Our Professional Future' and the like. Budgets are about to be slashed, very many CILIP members are shortly going to be made redundant for very very wrong reasons and there just isn't a strong enough voice to stand up for us. Advocacy is the ONLY thing that matters for the foreseeable future.

OK, rant over!

[Gaz Johnson]

Wow. Thought I'd missed out on the virtual debate as i was stuck in meetings all Friday afternoon (and then a little surprised to discover it was still going on when I got out!)I've never (yet) made it to a CILIP AGM and frankly going on the comments here can't say that I'd feel it worth my while. AGMs for SIGs I've been to over the years have been a mixed bag, but have generally been a great celebration of the groups works - rather than getting bogged down my pointless sounding minutae. I can get that at any the local Parish Council meeting.

[Africker]

AGMs are often awful by the nature of the formalities they tend to need.

The basement room badly needs to be changed - no wifi and no live stream is a major fail and one that members have been pointing out for several years now. SOAS actually tweeted to say there was wifi but only if you had some sort of student membership - so no wifi in practical terms.

The issue of mostly retirees and not enough live professionals is a major one. Perhaps the key to this is to move the AGM to an event where lots of live professionals are? Link it to a conference and there may be a better chance of their being wifi and streaming available. It is not as though there are hundreds of retirees turning up!

I wonder if we need to have an AGM in this style at all? Why not make Members day just that? A chance to celebrate those who have contributed, an opportunity for networking and a chance to hear about interesting developments across the profession. Realistically AGM is not the place to have debates about sub rates and so on. These things are nearly always going to be sorted in advance (and with the input of members elected to represent others) so why pretend their is debate?

[Nigel Macartney]

Very good blog, Phil. I think a growing number of current CILIP councillors also believe we must ring the changes for the AGM and I write as the Chair of Council! The present format has served its purpose but now we need to reflect the wishes of the membership as expressed widely in the "new media" and Defining Our Professional Future. However, we do need the AGM for all sorts of reasons (legal as well as others) and ....if we didn't hold it there would be a great deal more than mild criticism! However, there is now a chance for a re-think on how more can participate in what can be a highly informed and democratic organisation. I shall be raising this topic at the next meeting of Council and encouraging its members to read this blog and the comments. Nigel Macartney

[Penny Simmonds]

Perhaps the awards and celebration of members achievemnts could be linked to a conference e.g Umbrella ? This might attract some media attention too. These fantastic achievements deserve promotion to the wider world which hopefully could help to raise the profile of the profession.

Would more people be able to attend the AGM if it was held in the evening perhaps and live streamed to those who couldn't?

Penny ( CILIP Training and Development)

[Diana Nutting]

Yes the AGM is boring - and I've been to a few. I'm no longer on Council and didn't go to this year's members' day, so I didn't realise that the morning sessions of exhibitions and free presenations were no longer happening. If I had been on Council I'd have fought tooth and nail to keep them. They were great.

As for SOAS and the afternoon format, it seems to me that that is all part of CILIP's unfortunate "academic" culture, which also pervaded Council in my time where there were interminable discussions on things which would be decided in minutes in a business environment.

And yes, CILIP is cliquy. The trouble is that people who are in a clique don't always realise the impression they are giving, and also find it difficult to look beyond the clique. I shall continue to rant on about this, as I did on Council till it gets through. Until CILIP engages with people who do information jobs, including knowledge managment, in the private sector, membership will continue to decline, because that's where the growth is, that's where the energy is, and that's where organisations like SLA and the British Computer Society are gaining members because CILIP likes its comfort zone.